Reflections on Writing

Over the past several months, I've probably received way more exposure to the world of writing than I ever have before.  Part  of it came from attending various panels at the Comic Con FanX in January, and a lot more came through joining the League of Utah Writers and attending their official writing conference in August.  And there's a little bit of hands-on experience trying to indie-publish my first couple of novels.  All of these things have given me a plethora of things to learn and realize, and it will undoubtedly alter the way I write stuff in the future.

Earlier in the year, I read a post on Facebook, in which Ray Bradbury suggested that all writers must start with short stories only, and tackle novels years later.  He suggested a regimen of writing a story a week, so you'd have something like 50 stories in a year and a few of them may be publish-able.  I personally didn't agree with this method - I started dabbling with novels when I was 15 or so, and never stopped.  I enjoy the breathing room and the breadth of a novel's narrative, and working with it hands-on has helped me evolve stylistically and structurally.  On top of that, it seems to me that plenty of authors got their start with novels.  This is ultimately subjective - some authors can pump out a great first novel, others can't.

However, in the past few weeks (mostly during the big writer's conference in Logan) I learned of another rule.  This is a quote that was once said by Terry Brooks, who attributed it to Ray Bradbury, but online it appears to also be attributed to David Eddings, Jerry Pournelle, and John D. McDonald.  Who knows who originally said it? The gist of it is this:

"Write a million words–the absolute best you can write, then throw it all away and bravely turn your back on what you have written. At that point, you’re ready to begin."

It sounds rough to write one million words and dispose of them.  However, that would roughly equate to ten years, which is about the amount of time suggested for a writer to properly mature enough to be any good.  At the conference, author Maxwell Alexander Drake pounded this into us, saying that it's always your newest work that's the best and everything before it is garbage.  Writing is a progressive learning process.  If you look back on your old work and think it's still good, then something's wrong.


When I look back on more than ten years of writing - all random stuff just for the fun of it, and hardly anything published - I realize that I might have reached a certain point of maturity.  I would have surely written a million words by now.

At this point, my projects are all scatter-brained and all over the place.  It's pretty sad to look back on old projects, which always elicited so much excitement and pride when I wrote them, and find that they're just bad.  Just about everything I have is now slated to be rewritten in some way.  At the same time, I realize that this means I've changed, improving my skill little by little to produce something that might actually be readable.

I've come to believe that writers have to be sadomasochistic by nature.  The sadism comes from having to create great characters and force them through hardship, pain, and suffering in order to make a cool plot.  The masochism comes from having to take your beloved story and cut out huge swathes of it and change it all around to make it better.  On top of that, a writer has to suppress his ego, accepting the pain of criticism to address shortcomings and fix things.

From writing panels, conferences, and critiques, I've learned the following lessons that could apply to any writer:

• Writing is a skill, not a talent.  It takes years of practice and learning, and it never stops.
• There are three things to master in writing:  dialogue, narration, and motion.  If you can write all three of these well, then you'll be set.
• As difficult as it is to get accepted by agents, publishers, magazines, etc, the only way to truly fail is to quit altogether.  You just have to keep writing and keep trying.
• Rules are meant to be broken.  I hear this all the time in writing.  I kinda hate the phrase, because I'm a conformist by nature and I can't bear the thought of breaking rules in society or rules given to me by figures of authority (including English teachers).  However, after reading from Cormac McCarthy, William S. Boroughs, and Hubert Selby Jr., I am truly convinced that anything goes in literature (seriously, how did these guys ever get published?!).
• Moderation goes a long way.  This can apply stylistically (watch your adverbs, your narrative tags, how much you show, how much you tell, etc) or with your content (too much trashiness, too many cliches, tone imbalances, deus ex machina, etc will turn people off).
• Lots of things can be left unsaid.  It feels important to describe things, but if you don't, it's nothing to worry about.  Readers can fill in the gaps with their own imaginations, and sometimes it may be better that way.
• Hooks are the thing that will earn you time with readers, agents, and other pros.  To hook people with your work, you should start immediately with the action/plot.  But action alone won't help you if it's just action for action's sake.  The characters need to be the focal point of all the action, so if you can establish the right pathos right away and keep the plot rolling, you should be set.

Lessons in getting published (not that I've been professionally published, but this could help you):

• The publishing industry is going through a transition phase.  In spite of that, it looks to me like there's a difference in opinion on the value of the traditional publishing model, and of literary agents.  Agents are busy people as they are, they have little to no time or patience to accept new clients, so they set the standards for queries absurdly high and will reject anything and everything that doesn't meet those standards.  On top of that, they're also pulling double-duty as editors.  Some agents have recently been sued for negotiating contracts without a license.  Publishers in New York are enforcing more life of copyright contracts, meaning that they'll have the rights to books for 50 years or so, giving writers no control over their work.  The quality of traditionally-published work is not what it used to be, and they still won't do much to market you.  Some writers will still tell you to publish this way - it's the professional way and it's how you break into the business.  However, some writers will enforce indie-publishing as a viable alternative, since new tools (like Createspace) allow authors to print and distribute their work in the same trade channels as real publishing houses.  Becoming a "hybrid" writer may be the most ideal position - one who publishes both traditionally and independently.  In the future, however, the entire industry could change drastically.  Flexibility is warranted in our current era.
• If you do submit works to a professional publishing house or magazine, you can't just spam them.  Research them first, to find out what agents and presses are looking for.  Submit only to those who seem to match up with your work.  Make sure you follow the correct formatting guidelines, and provide everything they ask for (nothing more, nothing less).  The guidelines are strict, because editors and agents have huge slush piles to work through and they will look for every opportunity to reject your work.  You can improve your chances by making sure you submit to the right people and in the right way.
• Pitches are opportunities to formally connect with agents and try to sell them on your novel.  It's easy to psyche yourself out over a pitch session, but after trying out a practice pitch, I found that it's not too terrible.  It's helpful to practice your pitch, to memorize the points you want to say, but you should be flexible to deviate if you have to.  It's not as formal as you might think - these sessions can be quite conversational, and if you're really passionate about your work, it should be easy to talk about.  There are loads more guidelines I've uncovered on this topic, so I may have to make a post about it later.
• I've read this advice years ago and it still seems to be true:  beware of anybody who asks for fees or money, or tries to force you to purchase something for your book's benefit.  Real agents and publishers should make the money flow towards you, and make their money out of a percentage of profits (about 15% for most agents, 55% for publishers) - anything else may be a scam.  Research should be able to help you identify how creditable your agent/press is.
• The most successful writers don't just stick to one thing, and they won't get far doing just one book a year.  Writers may work with novels, short stories, freelance writing, ghost writing, screenplays, musicals, comics, and so much more.  All of these different mediums have different processes.  To make a living as a writer, you will need to dabble in multiple mediums and work pretty darn hard.
• If you do manage to become a professional writer, you'll generally do a good job if you do two of the following:  write well, get work done on time, and be easy to work with.  For some reason, many authors aren't easy to work with, and that's why agents are needed to mediate between authors and publishers.

I've come to learn the following lessons about myself:

• It all begins and ends with the characters.  It seems like all the work I've been getting critiqued of late has failed to captivate readers because they can't connect to the characters - they're described as robotic.  I realize that my stories might be too engrossed in some cool idea or plot, and I fail to address the characters properly.  Without their thoughts and emotions, it's just shallow action and ideas.  I tend to think that these things could still sell, but they won't have a lasting impact.  I've come to think of this as the "Christopher Nolan" effect, because if you look at all the people who hate the movie Inception, or anything else the guy makes, you'll find these same complaints:  lots  of ideas, not enough character focus.  I think I've made plenty of colorful and interesting characters, but when the action hits, they tend to go through the motions, leaving various scenes feeling cold and empty.
• I've also been told recently that I've been telling too much and not showing enough.  For some things, it can be an easy fix.  I find it hard to figure out how to extrapolate great detail and description in character thoughts and emotions, without being blunt or obvious.  And then I find myself overthinking things, and I worry that I might wind up making a contrived effort.  What I find interesting about this is that I think I've done an okay job at balancing these issues in some stories, but have done a terrible job in others.  It's great when it flows out naturally, but it's a pain to fix in editing, and it feels weird to consciously tell myself "I have to show this and not tell it" while drafting something new.
• My hooks are weak.  In most cases, I've been so focused on using action or dialogue to start a story as an instant hook, but action and talking alone doesn't captivate nearly as well as starting with the character and the story's starting point.  I've also been compelled in many stories to start with setting the scene, but this is obviously a boring way to start.  I've been analyzing the openings for most of my stories, and I've been thinking of new ways to revise them so that they'll hopefully be better.
• Repetition, is one of the first problems that was brought to my attention, as far back as 2005.  I've kinda trained myself to spot repetitive words and phrases in editing, but it still rears its ugly head on occasion.
• Balancing dialogue.  I usually get a kick out of writing dialogue and hearing the characters' voices in my head.  So much so that I've probably overindulged in exposition.  I've had one scene get picked apart because the villain was "giving a lecture" to the character (I suppose he was monologue-ing).  I've recently been made aware that I have characters talking about stuff they should already know.  I'm gradually learning that there are things that are better left unsaid.
• Density.  Most of my older works were so action-focused that I made the classic mistake of over-indulging in it.  As a result, I had scenes that went through fight moves move-by-move.  It was long and dry to write, and it's long and dry to read.  I succeeded in making awesome stuff boring.  Same goes for description, which is weird since I don't usually like overly-descriptive books.  However, action and plot do slow to a crawl when I stop and try to paint a picture, no matter how cool it is.
• I should really read my stories out loud.  Even to myself, it's a way to methodically go through a story word-by-word and spot errors that will be missed when just looking at it.  I find that reading my stories out loud will also give me a better idea of how the pacing is going and whether I'm being repetitive or dull.  

So that's a lot of what I've learned recently.  It feels like I'm finally learning and accepting that I am still a novice in need of practice and learning.  I've already started going through old works and rewriting things, applying my knowledge to make these stories better.  Hopefully, I'll be able to publish something in the future that I can genuinely say is good and worthwhile.  In spite of this, it's feeling like an old phase of my writing is closing, and a new era is beginning.

I've written about one million words up to this point.  So in the words of Khan..."shall we begin?"

Book Review: Insurgent (Veronica Roth)

In Divergent, we were introduced to a unique semi-post-apocalyptic world where society was split up into five groups, and Tris Prior was thrown in the middle of an evil faction plot that led to war.  This follow-up takes off in a thrilling new direction, seeing Tris and her accomplices on the run, hunted, and targeted for some experiment that may change the future.

There is plenty to enjoy out of Insurgent.  At the very least, it is as breezy as its predecessor, with simple language that flows well and has enough color to keep things enjoyable.  It's a fast and enjoyable read, with action, thrills, some levity, and some interesting twists and turns.

However, the experience is hampered a little by the exact same issues that makes other YA stories (like The Hunger Games or Twilight) drag.  As the story of Insurgent goes on, Tris develops a tendency to mope and fixate on things, always questioning feelings and loyalties, to the point where it can stall the story's progress and make her character a little less likable.  The issue is further compounded by a few other character twists and subplots; one important character becomes a traitor, in a twist that makes me want to punch the wall in frustration.  One other character suddenly becomes good, but is still not nearly likable.  The romantic element becomes challenged and strained, and other things happen that makes the story overall feel less likable and endearing.

The story itself is interesting, and it is refreshing to see that it doesn't rehash the first novel.  There is one huge plot twist at the end that is really intriguing and clever.  Sadly, I felt the actual plotting could have been better.  It feels like the characters wander to and from different factions so much, including the enemy faction.  The mystery behind the factions' motives causes the events to fold out in ways that might seem confusing, but really I feel the film adaptation handled it all much better.  The film takes the same plot and condenses it, while making it clear what the enemy's motivations are and keeping things simple.  In the film, it's easy and understanble to follow Tris' journey, because she remains in one setting for most of it.  In the book, it feels like one too many steps to the endgame.

Like before, the book is written with simple, easy-to-read language.  It doesn't get heavy with details and descriptions, but it does have decent dialogue and characterization.  It's just plain good writing all around.

I can't say I find the characters or plot of Insurgent nearly as likable as the first novel, but it is a fun read.  However, I do think the film adaptation fixes a few of the issues present in the book, and straightens the story out a little better.

3.5/5 (Experience:  Good | Story:  Okay | Book:  Pretty Good)

Film Review: Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation

In Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, there was a brief mention of a new mission, before Ethan disappears into a cloud of steam. In his fifth adventure, Ethan would go face-to-face with the "Rogue Nation," a Syndicate so threatening that it threatens the world powers and forces Ethan and the team to face their toughest challenge yet.

This mission has its share of incredible peril. Once again, the entire IMF is rendered useless (this time out of political squabbling among the Intelligence Community), forcing the heroes to go off on their own off the grid to find the threat and use their limited resources to stop it. In their struggles, the characters have to infiltrate an impossibly secure facility, which involves Ethan swimming through a water-filled computer core. Given the physical threat and the physical feats involved, this scene is genuinely gripping. There is a pretty cool motorcycle chase in the middle of the movie. There are shootouts and fights. It all amounts to a complex cat-and-mouse chase, in the same vein as Skyfall, but with a bigger emphasis on deception. The push and pull and mindgames may need some suspension of disbelief - it seems as though Ethan can somehow plan for the most incredible of plot twists in advance and always come out with an even more elaborate plan - but it is fun to watch it all play out.

The story has its worthy moments. The premise is naturally thrilling, as the IMF team confronts great stakes once again. Ethan and the others have become a familiar family by now, and they remain endearing characters. What makes them stand out more now will be the themes of trust, especially with everyone questioning William Brandt's loyalty and what Ilsa Faust's motives are. Faust is a lovely new character caught in the middle of a tricky spy game, and her situation elicits decent empathy. Behind it all is a fairly menacing villain, who comes out as Ethan's direct foil; a mastermind terrorist who becomes obsessed with outwitting the IMF and becoming a true rogue nation.

Despite all the twists, the story does suffer a little. For a movie about a "rogue nation," I expected something bigger, like an actual nation of rogues or something. I expected the villains to have a grander level of influence and infrastructure, but they turned out to be a limited number of well-armed and well-funded men out for petty vengeance. The film ultimately doesn't reach the same level of stakes, personal or political, that were represented in MI:III or MI: GP. On top of that, the film seems to drop everything regarding Ethan's wife, obliterating any character arc that had developed. There are a few scenes that seem a little too incredible, especially in how convoluted the mindgames become. The opening sequence is too short for my liking (I actually wish the plane stunt was somewhere in the middle of the movie, so it would give us all something incredible to look forward to). Regardless, this film is a fine spy thriller, but not the all-out MI extravaganza I would have expected.

This film boasts good, but rarely exceptional, photography. Editing tends to be rather fast. Tom Cruise is still apt as Ethan Hunt. Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner, and Ving Rhames are fun to watch. I thought Rebecca Ferguson was perfectly lovely in her role. Sean Harris is a pretty decent villain. Alec Baldwin plays a pretty grumpy dude in his role (and coming from a man who once played Jack Ryan, I find his character a bit too unreasonable and unlikable). Writing is okay. This production uses pretty good-looking sets, props, and costumes. Special effects are okay. Stunts are good. Locales are pretty good, but they don't really stand out as much as in other movies. The music score seemed really bombastic, for better or for worse.

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation is far from my favorite of the series. I personally wish the plot wasn't quite as implausible. I wish the nature of the "rogue nation" was different. I wish that a bunch of other little things could be altered. Despite my petty complaints, it is entertaining and worth a look.

4/5 (Experience: Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

"The President has initiated Ghost Protocol. The entire IMF has been disavowed." - Tom Wilkinson
--------------------
Mission: Impossible III may be a tough act to follow, given its superb balance between action and storytelling. Who would have thought that there would be even bigger and more daring missions to come?

Ghost Protocol takes the IMF team and plunges it into immediate danger, cut off from their parent agency and disavowed. On their own, without backup and support, they rely on what scant leads, tech, and resources they can to stop a bunch of villains from kick-starting nuclear war. In this mission, Ethan Hunt busts out of a Russian gulag, infiltrates the Kremlin (in the coolest way imaginable), and chases bad guys in cars and on foot. One of the biggest and most iconic scenes shows the man scaling the side of the Burj Khalifa Tower, hundreds of stories high, filmed in stunning detail with IMAX cameras. With so many stunts, so much deception, and such high stakes, the mission has never been more exciting and incredible.

This story doesn't have the same emotional heft as its predecessor, largely because Ethan's wife is out of the picture (and there is a nice subplot that explains what's going on there), and because the story's villain just doesn't have that much presence or motivation. What this film does have, thankfully, is a superb cast of heroes we love and can root for. Ethan had teams in all the other movies, but they feel like more of a team in Ghost Protocol, largely because they are all forced to work together without outside help. The conflict and banter between them allows these characters to develop their own personalities, which makes them all people we can relate to and root for. The actual plot retreads the tired old territory of "we got to stop nuclear war!!" but it does an apt job of stringing together the setpieces in a logical way, crafting a well-rounded adventure.

This film boasts superb photography and editing. Just about every shot is cool, without too much camera shake (like Abrams' film) and without any superfluous style choices (looking at you, John Woo). Tom Cruise is still quite the action hero, but is still well-grounded in this. I loved watching Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner, Paula Patton, and Léa Seydoux. Even though his character wasn't that well-developed, Michael Nyqvist was a convincing villain. Writing is pretty good. This production uses plenty of good-looking sets, props, costumes, and locales. Special effects can be a hit or a miss. Music is good.

Even though MI: III offers the best characterization and story, I favor MI: GP the most for its fabulous setpieces, while still retaining a lovable core cast and presenting a thrilling plot to bring it all together. I think it's a total blast, and one of the best spy movies in general.

4/5 (Experience: Very Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Very Good)

Film Review: Mission Impossible III

For years, a third Mission Impossible movie seemed unlikely, until JJ Abrams accepted the mission to make it happen. As Abrams' debut picture, Mission Impossible III is a rip-roaring thrill ride full of color and energy.

From its first scene onwards - half of a torture scene that is ultimately revisited later in the picture - the movie sets itself apart from its predecessors. It is grittier and more violent, showing agents skirting death and disaster in the hands of dangerous villains. There are really neat scenes of infiltration and deception, including a daring operation in the Vatican and a building in Shanghai. There's also a lot of loud and frenetic action, to include a thrilling helicopter chase scene through a windfarm, a drone attacking cars on a bridge, and plenty of gunfighting.

There is plenty of action and energy to keep the film rolling at full steam ahead, without being overblown. As welcoming as the pace is, one thing keeps it from being perfect: the cameramanship. Photography is good a lot of the time, but there are a lot of scenes where the camera shake becomes erratic, and it often hinders the action more than it helps. It's not quite as awful as The Bourne Supremacy or anything, but I would have liked MI: III a grade more if the camera would settle down a bit more.

What makes this film work, thankfully, is the storytelling. It's a pretty simple and straightforward affair. The plot ultimately revolves around people fighting over "The Rabbit's Foot," the full details of which are never disclosed (although it's not too hard to figure out what it could be in the end). It's ultimately not the focus of the story; it's just a device to showcase the true conflict, which is between the hero and the villain. At this point in the series, Ethan Hunt has become a more reluctant hero, having found a woman to settle down with. When he's dragged back into action, he spurs the villain, Owen Damien, to hit back where it hurts the most. Characterization is at its best in this film; Ethan is finally given something for the audience to latch onto emotionally, and when it becomes threatened, it reveals Owen Damien to be one of the most chilling and heartless villains committed to the big screen. This simple focus on characters makes the story and action flow much better than everything that happened in the previous movies, representing a huge step-up in quality storytelling.

This film is captured with very striking photography; colors are very vivid, details are sharp, and the film looks very slick overall. Camera shake does rear its ugly head in many scenes, but for every shakey scene there's also a very good-looking scene, so it balances out. Editing is pretty sharp and concise. Tom Cruise seems to play Ethan with more maturity than before, ditching most of the cockiness and adding in a decent amount of emotional heft. Phillip Seymour Hoffman excels as the villain in a chillingly perfect performance. Michelle Monaghan is lovely in all respects, and it's great to see Simon Pegg and Maggie Q in the mix. Other actors aren't bad. Writing is pretty straightforward and good. This production uses good-looking sets, props, costumes, special effects, and some real-looking locales. Music is pretty good.

The first mission had great scenes, but came off as being rather dry. The second mission was just crazy. The third time is the charm, thanks to the focus on an actual story with actual characters worth seeing. This mission comes highly recommended, even if you haven't seen the others.

4/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Story: Very Good | Film: Good)

Film Review: Mission Impossible II

"We just rolled up a snowball and tossed it into hell." - Tom Cruise
--------------------
Ethan Hunt returns for another mission. This time it's far more extreme and far more impossible. Riding the wave of insane action movies of the 2000s - utterly ridiculous films like Charlie's Angels, Die Another Day, xXx, and more - MI:2 is an adrenaline shot full of flash and style.

Unlike the first film, which was more interested in being a spy thriller, MI:2 comes off as a pretty silly and trashy action flick. Much of the story revolves around a biochemical weapon, so the film takes some time to set up the characters with some deception and counter-deception games. When the last hour hits, it becomes an all-out bombardment of over-the-top setpieces, featuring lots of explosive gunplay, dramatic fistfights, and vehicular carnage. There are some bizarre motorcycle stunts, including a scene where Ethan pops a wheelie on the front tire; I'm pretty sure a lot of this defies the laws of physics. A lot of these scenes are ordained with dramatic slow-motion flames...and doves! Lots of freaking doves everywhere for no apparent reason! What do they mean?!

The experience of this film is a weird one; the action can be pretty enthralling in its own right, but the build-up to it drags at times, and then when it all goes into overdrive, it's almost overbearing. A lot of scenes require a huge suspension of disbelief. Above all though, the film feels like it follows in the footsteps of so many other action films before it, such as The Rock, GoldenEye, and John Woo's own films like Hard Boiled and Broken Arrow. In the end, it feels like a tiresome "all style no substance" show.

A lot of this is because the whole plot around the Chimera virus doesn't really break new ground, and combined with the ridiculous action and style, the film feels shallow and senseless. There are a few redeeming qualities, however. Inspired by Hitchcock's Notorious, MI:2 does handle its characters well enough; the romance between Ethan and Nyah is pretty nice, the villain is a good bad guy we can love to hate, and their interactions overall gives the plot enough weight to make it work.

This film is made with some very flashy photography and editing; there are a few transitions I find gaudy, but most of the film is pretty stylish and good-looking. Tom Cruise still does his usual schtick, but it is pretty fun to watch Thandie Newton, Ving Rhames, and Dougray Scott in their roles. Brendan Gleeson and Anthony Hopkins are respectable in their small roles. Didn't care much for John Polson. Writing is not particularly great, but some of the lines are pretty amusing. This production uses some very exotic locales, sets, props, costumes, and special effects. I love Hans Zimmer's music score for this - a pretty wild blend of operatic and metal cues - and the film does use a few excellent heavy metal songs (for better or for worse).

This is a pretty odd film for the series; it's not much of a Mission: Impossible film, but it is pretty entertaining as a mindless action flick, and it does represent the height of John Woo's stylistic excesses. Genre and franchise fans should give it a try once.

3/5 (Experience: Mixed | Story: Okay | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: Mission Impossible

In the 90s, there was a pretty decent wave of spy movies; it started with a bang with 1994's explosive True Lies, which was shortly followed by the Brosnan era of James Bond, The Saint, Sneakers, and more. In the middle of this wave, Mission: Impossible burst into the blockbuster scene in '96, offering a flashier update on the classic TV series, complete with a prolific cast, some thrilling and memorable setpieces, and of course, action.

There are some great moment in this film. One of the most famous scenes is watching Ethan infiltrating a high-tech vault on wires, dangling over a pressure-sensitive floor while hacking into a secure computer; it's still quite the tense scene. On top of that, the bullet train scene is pretty awesome. There is a good amount of fights, chases, and explosions. There is plenty of tech on display, which all seemed really cool in the 90s (to include self-destructing video tapes, glasses with cameras, explosive gum, computer stuff, and more). There's political intrigue abound, causing the plot to twist around with themes of deception and counter-deception. For a spy movie, Mission: Impossible offers plenty to enjoy.

Unfortunately, the experience is hampered a bit by an overall feeling of dryness, causing some drag in between the more exciting scenes. This happens because the characters themselves are dry and fairly shallow caricatures; Ethan Hunt is a pretty standard action hero in this film, who watches his team fall apart and he's forced to go out on his own to find answers. This would be a great premise, but there's nothing much to Ethan's character to make us care for him. Without any personal stakes, the plot comes off as dry and shallow. There are neat ideas behind it, such as using a digital list of undercover agents as a MacGuffin, but on its own this is all rather dry and stuffy. On top of that, the film distances itself greatly from the source material; even though some names, some gadgets, and some aspects (like the use of masks) remain the same, the intrigue of the original show is ultimately replaced by pure spectacle. The original cast of the show hated this film, and if you're a fan of the original, chances are that you may not care for it (or its sequels) either.

Fortunately, the film looks good and professional, with fantastic photography and solid editing. Tom Cruise does his usual schtick in his role, smiling a lot and acting all cocky; Jon Voight does his normal  thing, and is pretty decent. The smaller roles by Jean Reno and Emilio Estevez are great. Other actors aren't bad. Writing could use more personality and color, but it's fine as it is. This production uses some really nice-looking locales, and some decent-looking sets, props, costumes, and special effects. Danny Elfman's music score is a pretty standard variation on the classic TV show's theme.

Mission: Impossible has a lot of cool parts, but the sum of those parts aren't quite as endearing. The various sequels, especially the third film, would properly align the series with a greater level of heart and ambition. As it is though, this first film is a pretty neat thriller, especially for its time.

3.5/5 (Entertainment: Pretty Good | Story: Average | Film: Good)